Tom Kline

When boat diving (e.g. Hawaii) I giant stride in after having stuffed the EMWL into the pockets of these: https://fourthelement.com/product/technical-shorts/ The pockets could be larger (esp. on larger sized shorts - I have the max size) as the parts stick out a bit. With the 130° I put the objective with hood attached to it into one pocket and the focusing unit plus relay lens unit (straight version) into the other. Carrying the EMWL parts to the dive store (in the case of HI diving), I carried it with EOcean lens caps on the ends and the parts wrapped in a lens wrap. I do the same for local shooting of salmon. See pix attached. Note the bright blue color. Black parts tend to disappear in the dark which it is here for about half the year (same latitude as Oslo).

Thank you Jim, glad you found it useful. To your question: About a decade ago a visiting Swiss photographer used a wireless remote control by placing the device in a floating small sized Pelican case that was wired to his housing using a cable similar to what I use. You might be able to build something like this yourself. Another solution, which I have used, is to trigger an underwater camera using a built-intervalometer. None of my Canon 1D type cameras had this so it was not an option for many of my shots (I have used four different 1Ds). First use was with a Nikon D3X. Its limitation was a maximum of 999 intervals which is not many shots when it comes to salmon. I selected 3 shots per interval but this was more of a band-aid solution. More recently I have used the intervalometer in my Nikon D4S which allows 9999 intervals so is far more useful. As well the intervalometer works well in conjunction with a remote cable, for example, I used the intervalometer to take a shot every 15 seconds as a back-up in case I was away from the release stick or the release stick ceased to work (this has happened). Most shots were done with a cable. I remember this shoot because I drained the battery in the D4S with the very last shot (of over 10K) showing actual spawning. Needless to say a lot of files had to be culled. Intervalometer shooting is also useful for angles where one cannot be close enough to observe such as on the far side of a stream relative to a primary housing. Also one has available the full use of two hands to move a polecam rig while the camera keeps on shooting. This was how I managed to get multiple perspectives when shooting the underwater shots for this gallery: https://www.salmonography.com/Salmonid-Topic/Family-ties You can see in the topside shot included in the galley that I was on the ground right next to the stream and the camera pole was aimed towards my left side (can only see one of red sneakers I was wearing over my waders in the pic). As well, this particular housing has just two bulkhead holes, one for the flash synch and the outer for a “remora” (a common name for remoras is shark sucker but mine is a housing sucker!), so I was compelled to use the intervalometer.

I have been using 8-cell Power-X chargers for many years. My 4th copy is black whereas the 3 older are grey. I am looking at the tiny label on the bottom of the black one now - It has MH-C801D in the name but no mention of smart. Mine all came with AC adapters for US current that connect with a DIN type plug. The only issue I have had is that segments of the LCD display seem to fail after a while (years). This happened to one unit of my first two bought (close to 2 decades ago) so bought #3 and more recently #4. The now 2 units with a semi-functional LCD still charge but hard to tell with missing segments. It is a good idea to have 2 of any type of charger so one can swap them out or have two to charge more batts (16 at a time is minimal for Retras). A possible issue on boats is unreliable electricity. This was a problem on a research vessel I have been on. So all computers were plugged into UPS units. On one cruise it was reported that one UPS unit caught fire as a result of the ship's poor power (a 1960s vintage vessel) on the previous cruise. I would not be surprised if the longevity of power adapters is much less when used on boats. Possibly with portable generators as well.

Remote control has been a core technique for my UWP of salmon for over two decades. There are many pix showing set-ups on my web site at: https://www.salmonography.com/Salmonid-Topic/Photography-techniques/n-mnzBPB They are in chronological order with newer ones first. They show Seacam housings most of which are set up to use the Seacam remote control. https://www.salmonography.com/Salmonid-Topic/Photography-techniques/n-mnzBPB/i-ChFJBmw/A shows a set-up placed on the ground. In this pic you can see the bulkhead near the bottom of the housing where the remote is plugged in as well as the remote control “stick” at the other end of a 10-meter long cable, my standard length for remote control. The button on this stick works just like the shutter release button on a camera body (at least for Canon and Nikon, the brands I have used). A light touch on the release button wakes up the camera (if the camera is asleep) and turns on the autofocus (AF). A further push triggers the camera. As the AF technology has improved over the previous two decades I have had to adjust the timing between the first touch and the triggering to allow the camera to focus. I often took a full second way back when, following advice given by Chuck Westfall, the late Canon tech rep, on the net. Here is one example: https://digitaljournalist.org/issue0506/tech-tips.html This is not the one I recall reading which may have been on DPR or Photo.net. Regardless, it is important to finesse the AF system a bit especially if one is using a more computational type of AF such as auto-area which is what I use with Canon. Nikon came out with a similar mode starting with the D4 generation. The many shots on my website suggests this works. There are other makes of remote control besides Seacam. I have used the Aquatica remote with the Nikon D1x which I installed by disconnecting one of the N5 bulkheads from the hotshoe fitting and installing a cord with a fitting for the Nikon 10-pin socket on the camera. The Aquatica remote uses Ikelite cords that connect with the N5 bulkhead as opposed to the S6 bulkhead used by Seacam. The Aquatica release does not separate the wake-up-AF-on and the trigger functions; it is just a simple switch so I connected two of the three wires on the inside of the housing (that goes to the camera) and only used AF priority. Nonetheless the first shot in a series was typically OOF when using the Aquatica release. It might be better for video but I have zero experience with that. Reef also makes a release. See: https://reefphoto.com/products/zen_remote_release_handle. It is a bit cheaper than the Seacam and uses Ikelite cords. I have not only not used it I not even seen one in person. Hopefully someone will provide you with some info on this. The Nikonos RS had a remote control as well. I modified mine to work with the D1X because I could separate AF-on from triggering. The RS release is a piece of junk compared to the Seacam one. I will leave it at that. Cheers! Tom

Done. The button label looks like a cartoon call-out. BTW, before seeing this I did not know you are responsible for the new vid show, thought it might be Matt's!

A serious blast from the past! An actual table of contents for an internet thing!!! Nota bene, a table of contents is something one typically found near the beginning of books. Claude, however, is far from perfect. See the Seacam entries at https://wetpixel.echeng.com/companies/seacam/. "Both (viewfinders) were available for all Seacam housings..." The Seacam Silver housing for the NIkon F5 was offered in versions that did not take the interchangeable finders but instead had a flat window for use with an F5 with an Action-finder attached (DA-something, I know because I have one). As well, the remote system started a few years earlier before it was shown at DEMA (2007 as reported in the Wiki) because I was able to order my D2X housing (late 2004 or early 2005) with it installed (ordered retroactively during the 9-month wait it took). I seem to recall the remote was announced alongside the Seacam housing for one of the Canon 1D cameras (either 2 or 3 series). When I saw that on Wetpixel I called Liz at SeacamUSA and asked about adding it to my housing as well as the big question for me: Would it be able to be used with longer cables than the lousy 1.5 meters of the RS remote control (which I had at the time). The answer was yes and has been at the core of my digital UWP.

After making the above post I saw that there was a big error in my hiearchy which I have just fixed. Fishes was in the wrong place. It was an easy fix.

A hierarchy is useful for doing the whole taxonomic nine yards. Here is an example from my LR catalog. I only have to type in pi, the first two letters in pink, and LR often gives me pink salmon as the first choice. Select that and all the higher bits are automatically added on LR export such as when generating jpegs. Note that I have over 91K pix of just that species but the number above is smaller. It is possible to equalize the numbers but it is time consuming so I have not done it for a while. As well you will note the mixture of English and scientific names. This is so the English names for higher taxonomic groups also get included in the key-wording. The includes some rather obvious words like vertebrate. I have been using LR since version 1.0 so this is a fairly developed KW list. It is VERY easy to modify. Just drag the keyword around in the list. Put it under the KW you want in the hierarchy. I have done a LOT of modification over the years. This includes having to deal with taxonomic revision such as for the mantas a few years ago. Often have to fix spelling errors! Need to do some clean up as well - the fish prey KW needs to be moved or deleted. I use the # symbol as well as all caps to designate a division in the KW list just to keep them more organized. It can selected (via a dialog box) so that this not exported hence it is a non-keyword.

Looks like a potentially useful tool. Looks like I will not be able to use it as I have Intel macs (tower and laptop) and will NOT be updating my pro model anytime soon (very last Intel model). At any rate it looks like you have loaded up on beta testers. I think the way to do the test is to make a "daughter" catalog for one area. I have done this for Hawaii and loaded it onto my laptop for a trip to HI. I was thus able to use existing keywords as well as see what I already have in the way of pix for a given spp etc. as I imported new images. New pix were in a new folder in this catalog. On return home I made a daughter catalog (selecting the new folder) on my laptop which was then imported onto my mothership (tower computer).

I have the adapter Chris mentions. There are several versions. I have used three versions thus far. One of the first two might work for you. It is a bit of a Rube Goldberg with both fiber optics and a cable, one on each side of the adapter that dangles in the middle. I found this to be not rugged enough for my use in Alaska. The third version screws into a Retra starting with the gen 3 models so does away with having to use fiber optics. This is what I am using now. One thing you should know is these adapters are for manual use, no TTL. I suggest that you use a strobe that takes N5 cables. This is the only way you are likely to get TTL flash which was more useful with film than with digital as there is no chimping with film. There are loads on the used market for not very much. The last new model was the Nikon SB105 that was introduced to replace the recalled SB103 so are likely to be not too used. Make sure to have back up synch cords on hand as they do eventually fail.

Looks like it may be an Acropora. Really need a close-up shot showing the ends of an arm. As well it looks like a fairly young colony (small size - few polyps) so may not have developed much of the 3-dimenional aspects of one that is more developed.

Shorting out the triggering contacts should trigger the strobe. This trick can also be used on topside strobes. Some (mostly older and studio) models will generate a significant arc. Make sure to have the strobe power,on for a while to reform the capacitors - 30 minutes should work.

Nice report! A basic tenet of underwater photography is that one needs to minimize the water distance between the camera and the subject. Therefore the angle of view of one’s optics needs to be proportional to the subject size and therefore the focal length inversely proportional. A 200mm focal length macro lens will be great for shooting butterflies topside but mainly useful for tiny subjects under water. Aiming and focusing a 200mm will also be a bit more challenging than shorter focal lengths.

I think it is now more important that ever to sign one's works to "humanify" them. Hence a watermark. This can be forged as well but if there is an authorship question the author can be contacted to verify. It is only a matter of time before AI starts adding imperfections - a speck of backscatter here and there for example. Easy to ID species will be less problematic for AI compared to others. I invite people to look at dichotomous keys to see the types of minutia that may be needed for others. Some require looking inside as well as I recall a fish key I used in a class that showed up during an examination that required knowing the peritoneum color.

Tariffs strike again!

I wrote it live so to speak but I did have to scroll up and down quite a bit to see the prev mssgs super keyboard challenged

somehow I screwed up and the text goes beyond the page!

Another data point: I have the book titled Free Diving by Rebikoff translated by Mervin Savill. Published in London 1955, first published in 1952 in French as Exploration Sous-Marine Ch. VII (the last one) is titled Underwater Photography and Filming. He writes a lot about his underwater flash units but not a peep about corrective optics Interesting that Ivanoff lived so long but what did he do from the 1960s onward? Searching his name I came up with a living artist. Another data point; See: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9192/91920P/Afocal-viewport-optics-for-underwater-imaging/10.1117/12.2061445.short Read the abstract!!! He calls them "the Ivanoff corrector lens" Lens is a bit vague since it can be one piece of glass or a whole unit like a camera lens, but for lack of a better English word lens has to be used (Abstracts often have a word limit (based on a lot of experience)). This is from 2014 so relatively recent. At Chris: the Nikonos opinion is from a current web page so would seem to be not too out of date but maybe limted to the experience of the author(s). I remember when the blue housings were released! It was during the 2 years my family lived in the US (Germany before and Japan after) when I bought the Hasselblad issue (house magazine) on it at a local camera store. This was between Sept 1970 and August 1972. So it is about 2 decades post Ivanoff earliest dates from the patent. BTW the first Hasselblad to use the 38mm lens was called the Supreme Wide Angle or SWA. The SLR was the 1000F. I have seen a SWA in person - it had a more primitive shutter. From the early 1950s. The SWC, the later camera, has to be used in the blue housing that takes the corrector lens. SWC/M and newer, no, because the tripod mounting shoe was moved to allow fitting of Polaroid backs.

Happy Thanksgiving! Thank you Alex. Not surprised that Zeiss may have made some improvements, but a doublet (2 elements glued together) for the port would also need to consider pressure resistance. How would hydrostatic pressure affect the glass at the contact surface between the elements? Lens element separation is bad enough in air (have seen Z optics with this problem - both camera and microscope). Thank you Adventurer. The 2003 article is interesting but may be misleading. It would be good to know how the author obtained the quoted material. It seems unlikely that it is from his memory if from 1968!! Rebikoff may have worked with JYC but it is Edgerton that JYC called Papa Flash. JYC is known to have had custom built underwater housings for his motion picture work. If Rebikoff worked with Ivanoff to invent the I-K lens per this article why is Rebikoff not in listed in the patent (other names (Grand and Cuvier) are)? Rebikoff may have outlived Ivanoff so had more of a chance to blow his horn (as well as being the book author). Also note the differences in the figure captions I previously posted. System Ivanoff in 1955 then called Rebikoff correction lenses in 1965! For the same items. R does show the smaller lens (actually two of them) on his stereocam. R may have built the cam but I more likely (his company or his associates) the lenses that are part of the housing. Thank you Davide. The Fathom unit seems to work more like the recent Sea&Sea correction lens as it is designed to work with a dome port but with 3 lenses elements so may be even more expensive. The S&S lens is aspherical and maybe it is doing the same job as 3 that are spherical. Thank you Chris. These lens were first developed by 1955 as that is the date of the earlier book and there are more examples in it. The patent was submitted in 1951 (in France apparently), received by USPO in 1952. Suggests a bit earlier than the 1960s.

I found a couple more links while searching the web: https://g6yb.com/g3ynh/photography/articles/wconv_intro.html Here is the important text: "Rebikoff-Ivanoff corrector, in its basic form, consists of a plano-concave front element with a magnifying element behind. It eliminates the optical distortion caused by a flat air-water boundary. The lens elements can be mounted in their own underwater housing, allowing the rear surface to be placed close to the flat port of an underwater camera housing. If the intervening water layer is thin, the external lens corrects for the distortion caused by the port." Interesting is that it can be used as a wet lens. How similar is this to existing wet lenses? Another is this: https://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/film.htm Here is the important text: "Rebikoff-Ivanoff correction lens Demitri Rebikoff was one of the pioneers in underwater photographic equipment in the era 1940-1980. He designed an underwater correction lens that is also a wide angle converter, based on an inverted telescope. Because it does not change the camera's focus, it is said to be a-focal. As shown in the diagram, this correction lens consists of a negative lens as port and a flat positive lens placed 30mm further towards the camera. The lens can be put together from the parts supplied by a technician for eye glasses. It has a number of attractive advantages, not the least that it can be used both above and under water. It is also used as a 'wet-mate' underwater attachment. The Rebikoff 'port' is often used for underwater television cameras, but it is disappointing for still cameras, and cannot match the sharpness of the Nikonos lenses." Cutting and pasting brought in the figure. Note the change in order of the names for both sources. Was this arbitrary? Nikonos lenses are better???!!!!!!!

I second Davide! I am curious about: Rebikoff fronts glas uw correctors Ivanoff-Rebikoff corrector ports What is the difference and please provide citations? I ask because Rebikoff used inconsistent nomenclature in his books. I have his 1955 and 1965 books published in the US. They are very simmilar even using some of the same pix. See attachment. From what I know Ivanoff wrote the patent and Rebikoff actually built them. Apparently early in France and then in the US.

FYI, I typically see a jump in the remaining battery power of one bar (on the unit's display) about an hour or so after ending a shoot (when I am home) and the housing is still cold to the touch even during the summer. This goes for both Li and Ni type batteries - cameras and strobes.

This is why I have mostly used gripped bodies here in Alaska: Nikon one-digit and Canon 1d models. Even with them I have had sudden death with the batteries (after a lot of shots).

Great find and read Chris! A 33% increase seems valid. I suspect it is more noticeable when DOF is somewhat greater. For example if DOF is 100mm, 133 mm might be noticeable. However if DOF is just 1 mm, 1.33 might not seem like much of an improvement.

Thanks for the pointer Alex, I had to look it up!!! On the page above Fig 6.13 is point #4 (a list of the correction port properties): "4. The depth of field is increased about a factor of 2 over a plane port with the same camera lens and aperture." This sounds to me more a benefit of the de-magnification effect (1.33x eliminated) compared to a plane port. Mertens has a long discussion on depth of field and gets into loss of aperture due a plane port, compensating by changing distance, etc. There is also Fig. 6.17 that would be much better in color as there are 8 lines if I counted correctly. It would have been more interesting if Mertens had compared to a dome port as well. Based on the caption in Fig. 6.14 the examples of I-R port in the book (Fig. 6.13 same swimming pool) were shot with a 21mm Super-Angulon lens (made by Schneider for E. Leitz), f/4 and f/3.4 max aperture versions made by then; as well as M (Leica Rangefinder camera) and mirror lock-up versions (for the Leicaflex as the Leica SLRs were named back then)). These lenses are of the non-retrofocus type not too dissimilar to the 38mm lens your port was designed for.